Explain this to me?

So say my calorie intake is 1700 but i burn 1000 is that fine to be running off only 700 calories?

Replies

  • enickma1221
    enickma1221 Posts: 29 Member
    "Fine" is a funny word. What are you trying to accomplish?
  • Gracecakes29
    Gracecakes29 Posts: 11 Member
    Ok thank you!!
  • Redordeadhead
    Redordeadhead Posts: 1,188 Member
    No it's not. You should be eating back at least some of your exercise calories.
  • TavistockToad
    TavistockToad Posts: 35,719 Member
    So say my calorie intake is 1700 but i burn 1000 is that fine to be running off only 700 calories?

    Nope, it's the same as only eating 700 cals.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    psuLemon wrote: »
    I'd ask what you would be doing to burn a 1000 calories and how its measured. And I would ask how you came up with 1700.

    This is the first thing that occurred to me. If the burn is from exercise above normal activity and is accurate, then no, you are not eating enough.
  • mkculs
    mkculs Posts: 316 Member
    Are you saying you ‘eat’ 1700 calories and burn off 1000 calories in a day?

    If you are eating 1700 calories then yes that is okay, depending on your diet you should be hitting your macro and micronutrients!

    No, you need to NET 1700 calories. If you eat 1700, then exercise to burn another 1000, your "net" is 700. You would need to eat more.

    If MFP gave you a goal of 1700, it means you are already estimated to be burning about 2200 calories without additional exercise. It has built in a 500 calorie deficit, in other words. You can NET as low as 1200, but you may be too hungry for that to be sustainable.

    To be on the safe side, eat what MFP gives you PLUS at least 50% of your exercise calories. In your example, that would be 1700 plus 500 (which is 1/2 of the 1000 you say you burned through exercise--and be careful where you get that burn estimate). So you would need to eat 2200 calories that day. You will still have a deficit of 1000, of course.